ABC's Election Analyst blogs on the wonderful world of Australian Elections.

February 24, 2010

Latest EMRS poll shows Green surge ahead of Tasmanian Election

The latest measure of Tasmanian public opinion contniues the grim news for the Labor government of Premier David Bartlett, provides a surprising set back for Liberal hopes of Will Hodgman becoming Premier, and provides a vote boost for the Tasmanian Green party and its Leader Nick McKim.

The just released February 2010 survey by research company EMRS shows government support falling two points to 31%, Labor well behind the Liberal Party, who fall 5% to 39%. The real surprise is the surge in Green support to 27%. (Figures taken from Table 3 of the EMRS report, after distributing leaning and undecided voters.)

The preferred Premier ratings are again bad news for the government but also a setback for Will Hodgman. In February 2009 David Bartlett led Will Hodgman 41% to 29%. In August Will Hodgman pulled ahead of David Bartlett for the first time and by the November EMRS poll Hodgman had reversed the February position, leading Bartlett as preferred premier 40% to 28%.

The February 2010 poll sees David Bartlett remain relatively static on 29%, but Will Hodgman slips six points to 34%, Nick McKim up two to 21% with 17% undecided or stating none of the above, an increase since November of four points.

On these results the Greens could yet win six seats, including two in Denison, a result that would be truly remarkable.

The raw EMRS data in polls since the start of 2008 is shown below.

EMRS Surveys of Voting Intentions - August 2008 to February 2010

% Vote by Party

Party

Mar 2008

May 2008

Aug 2008

Nov 2008

Feb 2009

May 2009

Aug 2009

Nov 2009

Feb 2010

Labor

31

25

30

30

34

33

26

26

23

Liberal

31

33

30

26

29

27

33

37

30

Greens

18

18

16

18

15

13

17

17

22

Independent

2

2

1

1

2

3

2

2

2

Undecided

19

22

23

23

20

24

22

19

23

As I explained in a previous post (click for details), EMRS publishes its data with undecided and leaning voters more clearly indicated than is usual with other company's published data. This makes it look like there are more undecided voters than with Newspoll, but in fact the proportion of voters not offering an opinion to the first EMRS voting intention question is not much higher than for other company's polls.

However, as I also explained in my previous post, there has been a tradition in Tasmania of undecided voters switching late in the campiagn to whichever party is more likely to provide majority government. This is a reaction by Labor and Liberal voters to the solid base of support for the Greens. With Tasmania's use of the proportional Hare-Clark electoral system, there is always a chance the Greens will win the balance of power at a closely fought election.

The late swing to Labor in the 2006 election campaign was a classic example of undecided voters squeezed into supporting Labor under Premier Paul Lennon.

But what we are seeing at the moment is a very different trend. We are seeing the Green vote increase, up nine points since May 2009.

The bad polls in August and November burst the bubble on the idea that Labor could be returned as a majority government. The graph below shows the EMRS poll results since August 2008, the first after David Bartlett took over as Premier. This graph is based on the data provided by EMRS that allocates leaning and undecided voters. The graph shows the Liberals opening a lead at the end of 2009, now narrowed by the most recent poll.

The Preferred Premier poll mirrors the voting intention graph, Will Hodgman opening a lead through late 2009, but his support falling back in the most recent poll. Before this poll the Liberals were talking of gaining six seats and being a majority government after the election. On these numbers, such a result looks unlikely.

The great unkown with this poll is how many of those undecided voters will eventually vote Green. It has appeared in the past that the Green vote in EMRS is more solid than support for the major parties. When the pressure of the campaign comes on, it has seemed that very few of the voters classed as undecided will end up voting Green. Still, unless there is something wrong with this poll, you would say that 22% looks like the base vote for the Greens going into the election, a result that would be a record vote for the party.

This poll is of 868 voters, a usual sample for Tasmania. The electorate break downs of the poll provide samples of under 200, far to small to be treated with certainty, but they do show some interesting trends.

The poll indicates the election result would be Liberal 10, Labor nine, Greens six. The Greens would gain a seat from Labor in Braddon, and win a second seat from Labor in Denison. Labor would lose two seats in Denison, one each to the Liberals and Greens, and lose a seat to the Liberals in Franklin and Lyons, and one to the Greens in Braddon.

What this poll cannot take account of is support for individual candidates. Both the Labor Party and Liberal Party put forward teams of five candidates, several of whom will stand a chance of winning based on the personal support required for victory in Tasmania's Hare-Clark electoral system. The Greens put forward an ordered team, with a lead, 2nd, 3rd etc candidate listing. Just asking about party vote, as EMRS does, will struggle to account for these candidate factors that work in the major party's favour.

This poll may yet set the mood for the campaign. It may be the major parties can use the possible increase in power for the Greens as a stick with which to frighten the electorate. On the other hand, the fear of minority government that stalked the 2006 campiagn has not yet emerged in 2010.

On this poll result, the 2010 Tasmanian election could produce a spectacular breakthrough for the Greens. It would also produce a very evenly divided parliament in which whoever forms government will be in a substantial minority. It may increase the pressure for some form of Coalition government rather than for one party to try and govern in minority.

If the EMRS poll - admittedly a small number of participants in the sample poll - were to produce 6 Greens in the 25 member Lower House in Tasmania that would indeed represent an amazing change in Tasmanian politics. Maybe the progressive coalescing of the two old parties - Labor and Liberal - into centre right political parties will yet produce a major party on the Left side of the political spectrum: the Australian Greens.

COMMENT: Maybe it could, but it might also condemn a new party of the left to permanent opposition unless it tried to move to the centre.

Regarding a Lib/Lab coalition, the equivalent did occur in Germany at the election before last, when their centre-left and centre-right parties formed a coalition to avoid dealing with the German Green Party.

COMMENT: I thought I was being asked a question about Australian politics. The grand coalition formed in Germany because both the Social Democrats and the Christian Democrats would have required two of the three minor parties to reach a majority. Antagonisms between the Liberals and the Greens, and between the Social Democrats and the Left Party, prevented either coalition forming. That was why the two largest parties chose the grand coalition as the only way to avoid minority government.

Antony, will you be covering the S.A. or Tas election? Or will the ABC coverage somehow cover both?

COMMENT: Tasmania. I've cut your views on who the Greens will support after an election. That's for the Greens to decide and they will decide it after the election once we know the Parliamentary numbers. I try to keep this blog as factual as I can and am not going to publish musings on intent from people who aren't participants in decisions.

I realise this is a very large hypothetical, but do you have any modelling about how this poll result would translate in a 35 seat chamber (5 x 7 members)?

While I find it unlikely that the Greens will pick up an extra 2 seats under the current situation, I'm interested how they would travel in an expanded house. If this polling translates to voter action on the day.

COMMENT: Liberal 14, Labor 11, Greens 10, but I'd expect personal votes for candidates to be much more important in an expanded house and would be surprised if the Greens did that well without putting up more high profile second ndidates in each seat.

A sample of 868 out of 357,315 eligible voters is a 0.0025% sample. I cant remember much from stats but that seems very low to me ? How does it compare to samples from the other companies (if they do surveys in Tas ?) and how accurate have the EMRS polls proven to be in previous years ?

COMMENT: Newspoll's normal sample is around one thousand for the entire country, so 868 for Tasmania is fine.

In 2006, the February EMRS poll underestimated Labor's vote compared to the final poll by 9%, was 1% over the eventual Liberal vote and 5% above the eventual Green vote. The EMRS poll in the last week of the 2006 election got the Labor and Liberal vote close to spot on but had the Greens about 3% up.

The question is whether the February 2006 EMRS poll was wrong, or did the campaign drive voters back to Labor. The general perception is that Labor did squeeze out the Green vote, though that is only a perception and there is no way of proving it.

Antony, I noticed when comparing the November 2009 poll against the February 2010 poll there was a jump in Green support from 13% to 23% in the seat of Braddon (Figures from Table 4). Do you think this is due to the late inclusion of a high profile Green candidate in December? And if so, do you think we may see the undecided voters, vote for candidates rather than parties if no obvious choice for a majority government becomes clear?

COMMENT: I doubt this had anything to do with the announcement of the Green candidate.

Luke: Ideologically the Tasmanian Labour and Liberal parties have both converged in the last couple of decades, to the extent that they would likely be more united in their opposition to the Tasmanian Greens, than opposed based on ideology.
I think the possibility of a Labor - Liberal accord is far more likely than that of a Green government, given the rhetoric of both major parties (by the way does it make sense talking of major parties in Tasmania any more?).

COMMENT: I think both major parties have expressed a preference for minority government rather than any accord. However, we may get the situations where no one party really has enough MPS to form an effective government. I think a minority government will bring back debate on increasing the size of Parliament.

Not a question, but a comment: Brilliant work as usual Antony. No speculation, just raw information based on clear data, the way all election information should be presented. Thanks for always being straight down the line.

Cheering that you are covering Tasmania. Another question about Australian precedents of coalition. Historically have each of the two major parties declined to comment on minority government and then dealt with it as it happens, or have there been cases of one of the major parties have pre-empted the hung parliament result and announced a provisional coalition plan?(Excluding of course the recent federal Lib/Nat coalitions)

COMMENT: Apart from the Liberal/National Coalition, I can think of no example of parties committing to a coalition before an election. Some Independents have indicated who they would support in the case of a hung parliament. The nearest example would be Mike Rann promising to keep Karlene Maywald and Rory McEwen in his Cabinet after the 2006 election even if Labor won enough seats to govern on its own.

I think its time you guys explained how our voting system works as simply as you can. I still talk to many people who don't realize or understand the preferencing system and what it does to their vote.It might help all those undecided make a more informed choice?

COMMENT: I awlays explain the system the same way. Voters should complete the ballot paper by numbering candidates in the order the voter wants to see the candidates elected. Voters must fill in a minimum of 5 preferences, but the more preferences beyond five you fill in, the more likely it is your vote will stay in the count. You can number candidates from any group you like, but if you have a preference for one party, it assists your party if your first five preferences are within that ticket. It is always best if you continue to number beyond your preferred party.

Is it possible for a former MP to return to parliament on countback, following his/her resignation in the same parliamentary term, if a an MP from the same party in the same electorate resigned for whatever reason or to make way for his/her return? Example. If a Franklin Labor MP resigned last year, could have Paul Lennon recontested to be returned on countback without facing the people again. ??

COMMENT: No. Section 227 of the Electoral Act states to be a candidate at a by-election, you must have been a candidate and not been a candidate that was elected.

People need to know how their vote stays in the count, and that it is not a first past the post = as you would imagine from the way the Greens promote themselves.

Given that personalities mean a lot in Tasmania, all candidates can potentially draw in votes for their party - can they not?

COMMENT: I repeat everything I said before. Hare-Clark is a system of proportional representation. You must fill in at least 5 preferences, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Beyond that preferences are not required but it is better that you number as many preferences as you can beyond five to give your vote the potential to have more influence on the count. If you prefer one party over other parties, it is better for your preferred party if you give preferences to all candidates in the column of your preferred party before going on to give preferences to candidates in other columns. But you can vote for any candidate from any group if you like, as long as you give at least five preferences.

By my calculation from the EMRS poll there will be 3 parties holding the balance of power, not just the Greens.
To get the maximum value from a single vote, it is best to vote for all but the one candidate a person wants least to get into parliament.

COMMENT: More accurately, you mean to have the chance to have the maximum value. You can just as equally find yourself in the position where none but your first preference counts. In the Senate counting system all votes continue to count, but not necessarily under Hare-Clark.

However, no-one should get obsessed about the counting method. Just worry about filling in the ballot paper.

The rule is in filling in the ballot paper that you must list at least five preferences. It is in your interest to keep numbering beyond five preferences as it means your vote may stay in the count for longer. If you have a preference for one party over other parties, it is best for your preferred party that you number all the candidates in your preferred party before giving preferences to any other group. However, you are entirely free to vote for any candidate from any group on the ballot paper.

Reflecting on Robert's comment and Antony's reply; but at the risk of committing 'speculation'
1. If the Greens do finally 'break through' won't the pincer be on Labor? To tack left to regain the support it has been outsourcing (in non STV mainland)? Or is Labor just suffering voter ennui in Tassie, its most successful state?
2. If the Greens break through, will STV hold? From memory no referendum is needed to undo it. Why is all the fun across the Strait and the Tasman? (Must be the good wine n cheese there.)

How does the parliament itself decide to expand the numbers of parliamentarians? Do they do this by passing legislation.? Potentially two of the parties in hung parliament could force legislation through to this effect could they not? Im wondering if there is a possibility that Tassie could revisit this issue given that shrinking the parliament has clearly not led to any particular benefits and one could argue many disbenefits. But how could it get re-jigged? What would need to happen?

COMMENT: A simple change to legislation is all that is required. If the current 5-electorate system is kept, all that needs to be done is the number of members per seat specified in the constitution is changed. If the structure of the electorates is changed, then a boundaries commission would need to to be set-up to draw new boundaries.

The legislation would require a majority in the lower house, and also need to pass with a majority in the upper house. No referendum is required for any change to the lower house electoral system.

Do you see a possibility of a Green government in Tasmania sometime in the next 20 or 30 years? If the Greens win a seat in Braddon and two in Denison it wouldn't be unrealistic for them to win two in Franklin in four years time. This would give them seven seats (which the Liberals have now).

COMMENT: You want a prediction of what might happen in 20 or 30 years !!??!!??

Irrespective of the final numbers the governing group will have to bow to the fossilized will of the upper hose. Arguably the most gerrymandered group in Australian politics. Getting agreement on any contentious issue will be far easier for the conservative side of politics.

The move from 7 to 5 member electorates was an attempt by both major parties to curb the green vote via increasing the votes required to obtain a quota. Apparently (thankfully) it's failed.

Back in the 50's there was an independent (Wedd?) who angered both major parties by his forthright weekly radio program. On retirement he was sorely missed.

COMMENT: Gerrymandered? Why gerrymandered? The enrolments were equalised in the 1990s. The drawing of boundaries goes through a three stage public process, so to say the boundaries are gerrymandered is an extremely strong accusation. You're saying the boundaries are deliberately engineered to produce a particular result?

Just wondering whether/when the schedule for ABC free party announcements will be posted for Tasmania? the SA schedule seems to have its own tab.

The allocation guidelines suggest that with more than 10% of vote the Greens may receive 6 mins of free ABC TV time, compared to 22 mins for major parties. It means the Greens will receive less than a third of the airtime granted to the major parties even though this survey of voting intentions (excluding undecideds) puts them only 1 point behind Labor. Are you aware of any Australian precedents where a minor party has been granted a higher share of free ABC air time? and would the allocation of time remain the same even if the Greens jumped another percent or two and overtook Labor?

COMMENT: The free time material wil be published in the next day or two. I have no involvement with or knowledge of the formula the ABC uses to allocate free time between parties. You would be better off directing your questions to the ABC via http://www.abc.net.au/contact/

What would be the legal situation if the end result is 10 Labor, 10 Liberal, 5 Greens? Obviously both Labor and Liberal would be courting the Greens pretty strongly but until an agreement is reached, and neither would be willing to concede victory to the other major party - would there be the potential for political instability - or is there a law that states what would happen in this situation (i.e. the incumbent remains in power?)

COMMENT: It's not a legal situation as there is no law on the matter, only convention. The parliament must meet and must elect a Speaker before any other business is conducted. One of the parties will be on the government benches, presumably Labor unless the government resigns before parliament sits and Will Hodgman is appointed Premier. Whoever is on the government benches will stay there and be the government until such time as the other two parties specifically move to toss it out of office with a series of votes of no confidence.

Why is the vote count suspended at 11pm on election night. It leaves at least 20% of the primary vote unattended to until the next day, or is it Monday? It would be helpful for everybody if the vote continued until every vote had been seen to. I don't like the idea that my vote may not have been counted on the night. You would only add an extra couple of hours to the count, surely.

COMMENT: The count is not suspended at any time. The count stops when it is completed, which is usually by about 10pm on election night. Every vote cast in a polling place on election day is counted on the night and check counted back in the returning officer's office in the two days after the election.

Depending on the state, the categories of votes not counted are postal votes, absent votes, and in some states pre-poll votes. Postal votes don't shut off until a number of days after the election. Absent votes have to be returned to their home division to be counted. Usually all non polling place forms of voting have a declaration envelope which must be checked before the vote is counted. This is normally done after election day.